|
In this mailing:
by Bat Ye'or
• December 22, 2016 at 6:00 am
- The Jerusalem
Declaration of UNESCO seeks to Islamize, with the help of many
governments in Europe and other Christian countries, the ancient
history of the people of Israel.
- But what does
this declaration mean for Europe and Christianity? Wasn't
Christianity born out of Israel? Wasn't Jesus a Judean Jew, as were
the apostles and evangelists? Or was it Islam that Jesus was
preaching, in Arabic and in the mosques?
- Where are the
great Catholic or Protestant voices to protest against this
Islamization of Christianity? This passivity, this indifference
makes you think that Europe will soon look more like Lebanon.
- European
countries recognize terrorism everywhere except in Israel, where
they themselves are allies of these terrorists whom they call
"freedom fighters" or "militants", against
"occupation".
- This alliance
has ruined Europe -- because the enemies of Israel are also enemies
of Christianity and of Europe. How can you ally yourself with those
who want to destroy you, without in fact dying yourself?
- The same
obsessive hatred Hitler had for Israel, which led to the ruin of
Europe, has persisted today in the European Union against the Jewish
State. The great irony is that in trying to destroy Israel, Europe
has destroyed itself.
During WW II, the alliance of Pétain and Hitler with
the Mufti of Jerusalem sought the extermination of the Jewish people,
whom they accused of being the cause of evil. Today, this same policy,
this same alliance, has set itself the same objective with the same
motivation: Israel must be wiped out.
Today we are witnessing the coming of the worldwide caliphate. This
expression means that the Muslim view of history is currently prevailing
in international institutions. We see it with the Jerusalem Declaration
of UNESCO, this palace of revisionism. The Jerusalem Declaration seeks to
Islamize, with the help of many governments in Europe and other Christian
countries, the ancient history of the people of Israel.
The Venice Declaration of 1980, issued by the European Community,
which tried to force Israel to survive in an indefensible territory,
already prescribed its disappearance and replacement with a people that
had never even manifested itself before 1969 -- and all with the
assistance of the Soviet Union and especially France. The Islamization of
Jerusalem and the delegitimization of the State of Israel were already
set out in the Venice Declaration, which to this date the European Union
has continued to view as valid.
by Heshmat Alavi
• December 22, 2016 at 4:45 am
- Iran's entire
power structure and most of its civil society is centralized under
the personal control of the Supreme Leader. In this way, Iran's
dictatorship is every bit as entrenched as North Korea's, making the
idea of traditional regime change a pipe dream.
- The mullahs
created a regime -- an entrenched revolution -- specifically
designed to resist change or reform, adopting a unique theocratic
structure that uses both Islamic ideology and brutal force to
maintain absolute power.
- There is but
one regime, and it has no interest in "reform."
- The membership
of every single one of the many official-sounding bureaucratic
organs is personally approved by the Supreme Leader. Indeed, any
individual, or coalition of individuals who might serve as a check
on his absolute power is, in fact, completely beholden to Khamenei's
whims, making him the most complete and powerful dictator on the
planet.
- Elections in
this regime are not indicative of any form of "democracy".
Instead, they are merely a process of choosing among individuals
vetted by the Supreme Leader. There are no factions based upon
ideological differences, there is mere jockeying for position and
the personal favor of the Supreme Leader.
- Western
governments' policy of providing concessions to the Iranian regime
in order to empower "reformist" factions is based on a
fantasy -- a fantasy which the Iranian regime deliberately
encourages in order to fool naïve foreign leaders into easing
sanctions and turning a blind eye to the nuclear program. In
reality, Western concessions are strengthening Khamenei -- further
reducing the possibility of change, and increasing the likelihood of
outright war.
Traditional "regime change" in Iran is
inconceivable. The Western obsession of labeling the regime's factions as
"reformists" or "hardliners" is laughable. There is
but one regime, and it has no interest in "reform".
Ever since Iran's mullahs rose to power in 1979 and established an
"Islamic Republic", they have worked to consolidate power both
at home and abroad. Given Iran's growing belligerence toward its
neighbors, persistent crackdowns on domestic dissidents, and frightening
nuclear ambitions, foreign analysts often talk about the possibility of
regime change in Tehran. But there is very little understanding of the
obstacles to dethroning the mullahs -- namely, that the entire power
structure and most of civil society is centralized under the personal control
of the Supreme Leader. In this way, Iran's dictatorship is every bit as
entrenched as North Korea's, making the idea of traditional regime change
a pipe dream.
The mullahs created a regime -- an entrenched revolution --
specifically designed to resist change or reform, adopting a unique
theocratic structure that uses both Islamic ideology and brutal force to
maintain absolute power.
by Shoshana Bryen
• December 22, 2016 at 4:00 am
- Palestinian
statehood demands should be taken seriously only within the context
of bilateral negotiations with the government of Israel. American
attention should be paid to the non-democratic excesses of
Palestinian leadership.
- U.S. economic
support and general support for the Palestinian Authority should be
attached to improvements in press freedom, human rights and economic
opportunity supported by the PA government.
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, U.S. President
Bill Clinton, and PLO chairman Yasser Arafat at the Oslo Accord signing
ceremony on September 13, 1993. It is worthwhile to review the parameters
of the Oslo Process, negotiated without the participation of the U.S.,
but adopted formally by President Clinton, because its underlying
assumptions are about to be challenged. (Image source: Vince Musi / The
White House)
President-elect Trump's choice of David Friedman as Ambassador to
Israel appears to be an excellent decision. It has already brought howls
of protest from people invested heavily in the Oslo and subsequent
accords, the "peace process" and the concept of the United
States as an "evenhanded" broker between Israelis and
Palestinians. Friedman, an Oslo-skeptic, has said he believes that,
"Notwithstanding 'agreements' reached at Camp David, Oslo, Wye
Plantation and elsewhere, neither Yasser Arafat nor Mahmoud Abbas ever
had any intentions to observe the minimal conditions required of a
two-state solution."
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment